Defense attorneys had claimed some jurors acted improperly by conducting home experiments to test evidence submitted during the two-week trial, and those affidavits addressed the outside tests.

Prosecutors argued that the affidavits should not be considered because they would subject the jury's deliberations to public scrutiny and possible badgering, which they said was not permitted by federal and state law.

One of those jurors told prosecutors that a defense investigator repeatedly came to her home and into her yard, watched her house and led her to believe she was employed by the court.

Another juror told prosecutors the investigator looked around her property while she was away and gave "the clear impression that she worked for the court and that (the juror) had no choice but to talk with her."

That juror said at least one other juror had received an anonymous letter that read, "YOU WILL BURN," and three of the jurors claimed in affidavits that they had been unfairly attacked and harassed by the defense and the media.

"The subpoena, the defense investigator hounding me and the defense attorney hounding me and the defense attorney calling me, has made my life a living hell and has greatly impacted me and my family," one juror said in her sworn affidavit. "Several people who have observed my recent ordeal have stated that it is not worth it being a juror and they will try to get out of jury service, if summoned."

Juror Tests Not Misconduct, Prosecutors Argue

Bronson said in his prior ruling that jurors were permitted to discuss anecdotal evidence gathered during everyday life experiences, but not so-called manufactured life experiences intended to test witness testimony.

Prosecutors said jurors acted properly by allowing their bodies to air-dry after bathing because they did not use any device to time the results and the observations were made as part of their normal life experience.

Defense attorneys had said these tests may have improperly called into question witness testimony about the length of time between when Widmer pulled his unresponsive wife from their bathtub and then called emergency dispatchers.

However, prosecutors said in their response that jurors reached varying conclusions about the anecdotal evidence.

"The discussion of air-drying constituted such an insignificant and de minimis part of the jury deliberations, that even if improper, it did not prejudice the defendant and should be disregarded as harmless error," prosecutors argued in their response.

Jurors acquitted Widmer of aggravated, or premeditated, murder during their first day of deliberations, and prosecutors said jurors agreed to consider all 35 witnesses' testimony individually as they deliberated on a lesser charge of murder.

Prosecutors said the jury unanimously agreed during the second day of deliberations, and before the air-drying tests were discussed, that Widmer had orchestrated or staged his 911 call and manipulated the scene before police arrived.

One juror accused of misconduct said she believed, in her own experience, that Sarah Widmer's body could reasonably have been dry by the time police arrived, six minutes after the defendant had called 911.

"Certainly, the Defendant cannot claim that he was prejudiced by a juror whose experience led her to disagree with the prosecution," prosecutors said.

Prosecutors said the discussion about air-drying lasted only two to four minutes of 22 hours of deliberations, and they said jurors characterized those discussions as an afterthought made in passing.

Bronson has not set a timetable for when he might rule on the defense request.

Widmer has already begun serving a 15-year to life sentence at Lebanon Correctional Institution.